Gold units, like knights, are generally costly to produce and they are supposed to be almost all round reliable, though with slight weaknesses against pikemen and monks. However with the development of AoE2 many civilizations have been added and with them comes new units, many of which have bonus damage against cavalry. Cheap camel riders are overpowered. So are uniqe units such as kamayuks and genoise crossbowmen, not to even mention the craziness of massed fire lancers. Then there are civs with certain bonuses that make their infantry OP.
To me there seems to be two options, either you buff the stats of heavy cavalry units or you nerf some of the anti-cavalry options that exist in the game. You could also combine these two. For an example nerf fire lancers, buff knights and maybe let Wei get their knight replacement unit in feudal age.
I agree that camels are a game design issue. Similar to Skirmishers their state as “same type counter” makes it that maps and metas that favor ranged or in this case moblie units tend to become then dominated by these.
However there is an indicator for Arabia at least IF the meta is off. And that’s the winrate of Teutons in 1200 elo + games on Arabia you can observe here: Teutons - 1v1 Random Map | 1200+ - aoestats
This shows that we are currently in a healthy state as Teutons are neiter below 50 % what would indicate a ranged units dominated meta nor too high above 50 % which would indicate a Knight dominated meta.
So we are currently in a very good spot, allowing a lot of different stats being viable on Arabia.
We came just off a ranged dominated meta which you can see in the past patch winrates of teutons, but rn it’s actually fine and neither knights nor archers need any buffs or nerfs.
I dont think you can say anything about cavalry specifically by looking at Teutons’ stats. They are not a pure cavalry civ and also not an archer civ. They might be balanced and knights in general could still be underpowered.
No Teutons is a very good indicator. It’s a very melee focussed civ with good Knights and counters to them. They have not a lot to counter ranged units with their terrible Skirm line, though ofc they can try to use Siege and Towers/Castles. But these tools are very limited.
In addition to this they have seen very little changes, so they haven’t been impacted by them.
And before you judge that indicator, have a look on the stats please. Teutons 1200+ elo on Arabia. When we had the Knigh meta Teutons had like 52 % + winrate. When we had the ranged dominated meta Teutons fell below 50 %. It’s a very good indicator for that. And currently Teutons are performing fine.
Teuton towers are no joke. Their UU teutonic knight is one of the units which should be nerfed to achieve balance between cavalry and other units.
I think Franks are a better indicator, since it’s more of a cavalry civ. It used to be pretty good, but its’ winrate on the current patch is below 50% - despite the fact that it’s relatively easy to play.
No franks is a bad indicator because it’s a timing oriented civ that kinda has lost parts of it’s “oppressive” identity. Also several balance changes obstruct the usability as an indicator civ.
Timing oriented civs in general are very hard to use for identification as their main playstyles can change rapidly. Like with Mayans who sometimes are used as super aggressive civ, sometimes try to utilize their xbows/plumes, sometimes play more “generalized” with the option to go for a super strong el dorado eagle spam. Similarly Franks playstyles can also vary from full feudal, Knight spam, booming with Castles… Teutons on the other hand are quite consistant in the playstyle.
And again, please have at least a look FIRST before you judge my indicator selection.
Teutons are one of 38 civilizations in the game which have knights and there are even more civs that have access to some kind of heavy cavalry unit. Additionally Teutons are not a typical example of knight civs in AoE2, because they have extra armour and lack husbandry.
Yes, Franks can be used for their extra HP on scouts, but there must be a way to look up their castle age stats. I’m sure they’ve plummeted compared to their strength before the introduction of various civ based counters.
Cavalry are very pop efficient. 20 generic fully upgraded paladins will defeat 20 fully upgraded generic halberdier. They need a continuous supply of trade gold to up their production in late game.
For the longest time infantry were absolutely terrible, let them have the spot light for awhile, I’m actually happy that the new meta made infantry useful.
Interesting. Because Franks lately have actualy seen a resurgence
So… As I said, Franks is a bad choice as indicator. Teutons is just better, their playstyle is fairly constant and you can really follow the trends of the Meta on their stats, for a long time already.
Just have a look. Instead of argueing it would be bet without even looking at it.
OK, Teutons are balanced so all knight civs are actually perfect. Fantastic. The next time I kill 100 villagers with knights and the enemy starts making fire lancers, turning the whole game around, I will just think about Teutons. Teutons, teutons and more teutons. What a wonderful world we have. Why? Because of Teutons.
Meanwhil your example of Franks is currently at 52 % in 1200 + Arabia.
Ofc there are also bad cav civs for Arabia, especially those with no or bad eco bonusses for the current meta like berbers or burgundians. But there are also bad Archer civs like Dravidians or Saracens (which is btw a camel civ aswell).
That’s what happens if the unit lines themselves are fairly balanced. And that’s why I pick Teutons as an indicator, cause if they have a winrate just above 50 % like they do rn, the lines are fairly balanced.
And btw your PRIME example of Franks is actually doing really well, idk why you complain. Your own indicator civ is actually performing VERY WELL in the current meta.
The knight line is still super strong. Yes they used to be more OP then now, but that doesn’t make them weak at all. What other unit is population efficient against basically all their counters? Only Elephants, which are also cavalry.
I don’t think that Camels are similar to Skirmishers.
Skirmishers have an improved survivability over Archers. They have the same HP but a lot more pierce armour.
Camels on the other hand have a lot less armour then Knights and even Light Cavalry. They die to a lot of units that Knights are good against. Camels are pretty bad against everything that is not Cavalry while Knights are good against everything that is not the Spearman Line and a few regional/unique units.
I disagree on your general idea that knight should be neae to unbeatable once massed. This leads to cavalry civs being auto-win civs, by spaming their better knights. Even worse in multiplayer games where trade gives infinite gold supply.
Cheap camels are not overpowered if they die to pikes/monks/crossbows.
If you play Franks against a Byzantine or Berber spaming camels, the good tactics should be to add counter units instead of spaming what is your best overall unit.
I dont feel knights needs a direct buff. If a buff is really needed, I would rather buff their counter counter, like adding a crossbow damage against camels, increasing pike bonus damage against camels, decreasing conversion resistance if camels, increasing conversion resistance of light cavalry, etc… So that the knight civ player wins by using something else than knights.
In this sense Camels and skirms look similar to me:
I think they are similar in the sense that they are a counter of the units from the building they are created in.
They are resistant to the attack of the units they counter (camels have a lot of hp, knights are resistant against knights)
They deal bonus damage
They are bad against what they counter is good against. Camels are bad against crossbows and longswords (which knight do well against) just like skirms are bad against cavalry (which archers & CA do well against)
The main differences are that:
camels cost gold,
go faster than their counter and
also counter siege.
But I do not see any design problem with this system. I like it.
I play a lot of Saracens and do not go camels by default, I react to the gane state and my opponent civ.
That’s NOT what I said. I said they are a game design issue, and THAT’s similar to Skirmishers.
The whole other part is completely irrelevant. I was referring to the PRACTICAL outcome that very open maps get in the camel bottleneck. It’s not a questopm wjat you cam THEORETICALLY use to counter camels, but that camels are jus the mobile units to counter the by design other mobile units (and themselves).
Please answer to the things I actually SAID and not strawmans you just make up.
I don’t think camels and skirms are a game design issue. You want each unit to have multiple counters, as not every civ has every option available to them. Archers can be countered by skirms, mangonels, and sometimes cavalry. Skirms have the same counters, but are significantly more hard-countered by cav. But that said, while skirms counter archers, the archer line can still take fights against skirms and win (it isn’t ideal, but a modest numbers advantage can easily trump this counter).
Camels, like knights, are vulnerable to monks and pikes. But camels are also vulnerable to ranged attacks and will struggle against the militia line. But while camels counter knights, there are times when knights can take that fight and win.
The thing is, not every civ has access to every counter, and even if they do, the counter may be at a low quality (enough that they won’t always work). Not every civ will want to go skirms against British xbows. Not every civ wants to go archers against camels. Not every civ wants to go infantry against fire lancers or eagles.
And the counter units do hold more than one use case. Skirms can and are also be used to counter spears. Camels can and are also be used as a raiding unit (even if they aren’t the best at it, they still have the mobility for it and may do so for after winning a fight against an enemy army or for civs that lack knights).
The main reason why those units were introduced/buffed is because cavalry were too OP, especially when paired with ranged units or scorps. Camel civs don’t get halbs and hence struggle when Paladin player mixes halbs. Rest of the civs would get raided to death due to the lack of mobility in late castle age or early imp before halbs can be spammed.